5 ms·

The explosion was fine and expected. They mentioned this in the livestream, although it looks like the FTS and not aerodynamic forces. Either way, it happened a

The explosion was fine and expected. They mentioned this in the livestream, although it looks like the FTS and not aerodynamic forces. Either way, it happened after the capsule was well clear. Regarding splashdown timing, we will see. They've been testing this extensively in the background, and parachutes have been a pain point all around.

soheil 7y ago
The explosion seemed very much like a controlled detonation and not a breakdown of the rocket as it falls through the atmosphere as was mentioned in the livestream so it seemed like an unplanned or unexpected explosion.
- ddevault 7y ago
  This is nonsense. The rocket was expected to explode. That's basically the only thing it can do once the dragon escapes.
  - soheil 7y ago
    It is insane how willfully someone with over 20k karma points on HN ignores the details of what I'm referring to (the manner in which it exploded not that it exploded) and bluntly assumes the dumbest thing possible about a somewhat neutral statement.
    - endothrowho333 7y ago
      You wrote a very poorly structured, punctuation-less, run-on sentence in the GP comment. You did so again here. In both instances it is unclear what you're trying to convey. Coupled with taking a neutral comment personally, the simplest conclusion to make is that you're not writing for the benefit of anyone else, besides yourself. Language's primary function is to communicate information. Our minds are like compilers that translate human-readable language into simplified neural impulses. If you write code with poor syntax, the human mind will still compile it, but you're going to get a lot of unexpected behavior, i.e "what the fuck is this guy trying to convey?"
    - martindevans 7y ago
      I _think_ what you're getting at is that the flight termination system triggered (controlled explosion) but not when it should have (unplanned)? As far as I understand it once the capsule ejected the Falcon 9 was destinated to break up (due to aerodynamic forces) and that break up would trigger the FTS automatically. So the AFTS triggering was part of the plan. That said it also doesn't really matter - the test was about what happens to the capsule when something goes wrong and not what happens to the booster.
- CrazyStat 7y ago
  You have a bunch of rocket fuel and a very hot rocket engine in close proximity when the booster starts to break apart. The explosion was entirely expected. I also have no idea what an unplanned or unexpected controlled detonation looks like. It seems like a controlled explosion has to be planned or expected by definition?
- lutorm 7y ago
  I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make, on the one hand you say the explosion looked like a controlled detonation, on the other that it seems unplanned. Like others have pointed out: as far as F9 was concerned, the test ended when Dragon detached. Whatever happened after that point is immaterial to the test, so to start saying that would require a reflight is nonsense.
  - soheil 7y ago
    The plan was an explosion due to free-fall and atmospheric forces. The plan was not for an explosion due to a controlled detonation. I hope you are able to delineate between the two and not do a cursory reading of my comment again. > so to start saying that would require a reflight is nonsense I said "most likely" and "if you want to be safe enough" I'm not sure why you assumed I meant "require"
    - lutorm 7y ago
      Because you also said "... or they will let it be as is which would be unsafe?" I think your reception here would be better if you dropped the attitude and recognized that your comment used pure speculation to imply that the outcome of the test was negative. Maybe that was not your intent, but then you should have asked more open-ended questions rather than slant them so obviously negatively.
    - JshWright 7y ago
      > The plan was not for an explosion due to a controlled detonation. What evidence do you have that it was a "controlled detonation"? Seems like you're making baseless assumptions and then getting upset when people don't understand what you're trying to say.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  When rockets, full of liquid oxygen and propellant, start to break apart in the atmosphere they pretty quickly look like a an explosion. A rocket with no nosecone will basically lose structural integrity very, very quickly. A rocket 'breaking down' doesn't look like fluttering bits and bobs raining down, it looks like a big fireball.
  - soheil 7y ago
    This makes sense. From footage of past explosions when the booster disintegrates, it's usually falling down. That's why I thought it was unexpected that it just blew up so quickly after the capsule was jettisoned.

soheil 7y ago

The explosion seemed very much like a controlled detonation and not a breakdown of the rocket as it falls through the atmosphere as was mentioned in the livestream so it seemed like an unplanned or unexpected explosion.

ddevault 7y ago
This is nonsense. The rocket was expected to explode. That's basically the only thing it can do once the dragon escapes.
- soheil 7y ago
  It is insane how willfully someone with over 20k karma points on HN ignores the details of what I'm referring to (the manner in which it exploded not that it exploded) and bluntly assumes the dumbest thing possible about a somewhat neutral statement.
  - endothrowho333 7y ago
    You wrote a very poorly structured, punctuation-less, run-on sentence in the GP comment. You did so again here. In both instances it is unclear what you're trying to convey. Coupled with taking a neutral comment personally, the simplest conclusion to make is that you're not writing for the benefit of anyone else, besides yourself. Language's primary function is to communicate information. Our minds are like compilers that translate human-readable language into simplified neural impulses. If you write code with poor syntax, the human mind will still compile it, but you're going to get a lot of unexpected behavior, i.e "what the fuck is this guy trying to convey?"
  - martindevans 7y ago
    I _think_ what you're getting at is that the flight termination system triggered (controlled explosion) but not when it should have (unplanned)? As far as I understand it once the capsule ejected the Falcon 9 was destinated to break up (due to aerodynamic forces) and that break up would trigger the FTS automatically. So the AFTS triggering was part of the plan. That said it also doesn't really matter - the test was about what happens to the capsule when something goes wrong and not what happens to the booster.
CrazyStat 7y ago
You have a bunch of rocket fuel and a very hot rocket engine in close proximity when the booster starts to break apart. The explosion was entirely expected. I also have no idea what an unplanned or unexpected controlled detonation looks like. It seems like a controlled explosion has to be planned or expected by definition?
lutorm 7y ago
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make, on the one hand you say the explosion looked like a controlled detonation, on the other that it seems unplanned. Like others have pointed out: as far as F9 was concerned, the test ended when Dragon detached. Whatever happened after that point is immaterial to the test, so to start saying that would require a reflight is nonsense.
- soheil 7y ago
  The plan was an explosion due to free-fall and atmospheric forces. The plan was not for an explosion due to a controlled detonation. I hope you are able to delineate between the two and not do a cursory reading of my comment again. > so to start saying that would require a reflight is nonsense I said "most likely" and "if you want to be safe enough" I'm not sure why you assumed I meant "require"
  - lutorm 7y ago
    Because you also said "... or they will let it be as is which would be unsafe?" I think your reception here would be better if you dropped the attitude and recognized that your comment used pure speculation to imply that the outcome of the test was negative. Maybe that was not your intent, but then you should have asked more open-ended questions rather than slant them so obviously negatively.
  - JshWright 7y ago
    > The plan was not for an explosion due to a controlled detonation. What evidence do you have that it was a "controlled detonation"? Seems like you're making baseless assumptions and then getting upset when people don't understand what you're trying to say.
Pfhreak 7y ago
When rockets, full of liquid oxygen and propellant, start to break apart in the atmosphere they pretty quickly look like a an explosion. A rocket with no nosecone will basically lose structural integrity very, very quickly. A rocket 'breaking down' doesn't look like fluttering bits and bobs raining down, it looks like a big fireball.
- soheil 7y ago
  This makes sense. From footage of past explosions when the booster disintegrates, it's usually falling down. That's why I thought it was unexpected that it just blew up so quickly after the capsule was jettisoned.